Film Crew Fatality on CSX in Georgia

[Euclid]

Murphy Siding

Euclid

Here is a plausible explanation of the conflicting stories about whether the film company had permission:

The film crew received permission from someone from CSX to be on CSX property, but it was not from the highest authority.  Later, a higher authority from CSX officially denied permission for the film crew to be on CSX property.  In retropect, from the point of view of CSX, the position of the higher authority overrode the position of the lower authority, and therefore the film crew had no permission.  CSX claims to have proof of that permission denial.   

However, if the CSX higher authority did not know at the time that the film crew had been given permission from the lower authority, they would not have clarified to the film crew that the lower permission was rescinded.   Or maybe the higher authority was aware of the permission given by the lower authority, but just assumed that the film company would realize that the higher authority’s decision overrode the decision by the lower authority. 

Therefore, either way, the film crew might have just rationalized that they had permission from one part of CSX and were denied permission from another part; so, they simply chose to accept authority of the part of CSX that gave them what they had asked for; that being permission to be on CSX property.   Why should they worry about which CSX authority was right and which one was wrong?  How could they be expected to know?

  What if they had written permission, but it was written in invisible ink, and now they have nothing to show for it?  That seems about as plausible.  Either they have proof of written permission or they don't.  I can't see where there's much room for in between those two options.

I am not sure that I understand your point.  I agree that either they had written permission or they did not.  But when I suggested they may have gotten permission from a lower authority, I did not rule out the possibility that it was written permission.  My only point is that they may have gotten permission at one level and been denied permission at another level.  

I do know that you can call any railroad company with a question and be transferred from one person to another all day long.  And every single one of them will tell you something different that the previous one.  So I do not see this double response theory as being farfetched.  It would perfectly explain the “conflicting stories” characterization by the sheriff.

And if there was a lower level permission, I would expect it to be in writing or otherwise verifiable because I don't think the sheriff would credit a claim of having permission without any evidence of that whatsoever.  I don't think the sheriff would regard a claim of permission without evidence as being a "conflicting story." 

[Murphy Siding]

Euclid

Here is a plausible explanation of the conflicting stories about whether the film company had permission:

The film crew received permission from someone from CSX to be on CSX property, but it was not from the highest authority.  Later, a higher authority from CSX officially denied permission for the film crew to be on CSX property.  In retropect, from the point of view of CSX, the position of the higher authority overrode the position of the lower authority, and therefore the film crew had no permission.  CSX claims to have proof of that permission denial.   

However, if the CSX higher authority did not know at the time that the film crew had been given permission from the lower authority, they would not have clarified to the film crew that the lower permission was rescinded.   Or maybe the higher authority was aware of the permission given by the lower authority, but just assumed that the film company would realize that the higher authority’s decision overrode the decision by the lower authority. 

Therefore, either way, the film crew might have just rationalized that they had permission from one part of CSX and were denied permission from another part; so, they simply chose to accept authority of the part of CSX that gave them what they had asked for; that being permission to be on CSX property.   Why should they worry about which CSX authority was right and which one was wrong?  How could they be expected to know?

  What if they had written permission, but it was written in invisible ink, and now they have nothing to show for it?  That seems about as plausible.  Either they have proof of written permission or they don't.  I can't see where there's much room for in between those two options.

[n012944]

Oh look, a Bucyrus/Euclid "but what if thread".......

Even if a "lower authority" at CSX gave them permission, there would have been a CSX flagman on site.   The flagman would be on all the train crews orders, and each train going through the area would have to get permission from the flagman to before traversing the limits.  They are present whenever a outside authority might need to foul the tracks.  The fact that there was none tells more than your grasping at "what ifs".....

[Falcon48]

I know nothing about the actual facts of this incident, save what I have read (and I've learned a long time ago not to rely on media reports for much of anything).  But, in talking about what the sherifff or the DA may or may not do, keep in mind that there's a difference between criminal and civil liability.  

In order to find the any of the film people guiltly of criminal conduct, a DA will essentially have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the film people knew they didn't have authority to be on CSX property, and went there anyway (he'll have to prove more than that, but he must prove this point to have any case at all)  "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a much higher standard of proof than applies in civil cases ("preponderance of the evidence", which is a fancy way of saying "more likely than not").  If there's any real ambiguity on the "authority" point, the DA could well decide not to prosecute,  For example, if some CSX official had purported to give the film crew permission (as suggested in some earlier posts), even if it wasn't in writing, and that authority was not unambigiuously withdrawn, the DA could decide he doesn't have "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence for a criminal case.  The film company, in this situation, could still face civil liabilty for negligence.

Again, I don't know what actually happened.  I suppose we'll all find out in due course.

           

[tree68]

Euclid

So what happens if both the grant and the denial are both in writing? 

Then heads will roll at the railroad, BUT...

If the film company had acknowledged receipt of the denial, they're still on the hook.

I'm sure the railroad has an established procedure for such operations.  Unless an underling failed to pass the request to the appropriate level of management, I'd bet that said establish procedure was followed, assuming an actual request was made in the first place.

[zugmann]

Euclid

 So what happens if both the grant and the denial are both in writing? 

We sit back and let the courts figure it out.

[Euclid]

BaltACD

Unless you have 'permission' in writing - you have nothing!  It is that complicated!

Well suppose the lower grant of permission and the higher denial of permission were both in writing, say by email.  In my example, I did not mean to exclude that possibility.  So what happens if both the grant and the denial are both in writing? 

[tree68]

Euclid

Why should they worry about which CSX authority was right and which one was wrong? 

All they have to do is produce that signed authorization and they'll be all set.

Without that, they got nothin'.

In the earlier thread it was mentioned that "someone" told them there wouldn't be any trains after such and such.  Who that "someone" may have been is open for speculation at this point.  Was it a local resident?  An employee of the plant which property they did have permission be be on?  An actual employee of the railroad?

Maybe they'd been shooting in the area for several days and thought they understood the "regular" traffic flow on the line.

Personally, I'm still betting on the film crew throwing caution to the winds so they can get "the shot."

[BaltACD]

Euclid

Here is a plausible explanation of the conflicting stories about whether the film company had permission:

The film crew received permission from someone from CSX to be on CSX property, but it was not from the highest authority.  Later, a higher authority from CSX officially denied permission for the film crew to be on CSX property.  In retropect, from the point of view of CSX, the position of the higher authority overrode the position of the lower authority, and therefore the film crew had no permission.  CSX claims to have proof of that permission denial.   

However, if the CSX higher authority did not know at the time that the film crew had been given permission from the lower authority, they would not have clarified to the film crew that the lower permission was rescinded.   Or maybe the higher authority was aware of the permission given by the lower authority, but just assumed that the film company would realize that the higher authority’s decision overrode the decision by the lower authority. 

Therefore, either way, the film crew might have just rationalized that they had permission from one part of CSX and were denied permission from another part; so, they simply chose to accept authority of the part of CSX that gave them what they had asked for; that being permission to be on CSX property.   Why should they worry about which CSX authority was right and which one was wrong?  How could they be expected to know?

Unless you have 'permission' in writing - you have nothing!  It is that complicated!

[zardoz]

zugmann

Euclid

Or perhaps the sheriff wants someone else to spend the money to put CSX on trial. 

Who?

The Doctor (that's) Who.

[Mookie]

To Euclid:  I am not going to get into the matter before the board in this thread, but I am intrigued.  Your postings suggest to me that you possibly have figured out which came first: the chicken or the egg.  And I mean that respectfully. 

Are you questioning (as a defense lawyer would do), playing devils advocate, enjoy this form of conversation as a hobby or all of the above.  I rarely pay any attention to the back and forth, but my "hobby" is the study of the individuals posting.  I get a sense that there is someone more complex behind all the rhetoric. 

Just curious.

Mookie

[zugmann]

Euclid

Or perhaps the sheriff wants someone else to spend the money to put CSX on trial. 

Who?

[Euclid]

Here is a plausible explanation of the conflicting stories about whether the film company had permission:

The film crew received permission from someone from CSX to be on CSX property, but it was not from the highest authority.  Later, a higher authority from CSX officially denied permission for the film crew to be on CSX property.  In retropect, from the point of view of CSX, the position of the higher authority overrode the position of the lower authority, and therefore the film crew had no permission.  CSX claims to have proof of that permission denial.   

However, if the CSX higher authority did not know at the time that the film crew had been given permission from the lower authority, they would not have clarified to the film crew that the lower permission was rescinded.   Or maybe the higher authority was aware of the permission given by the lower authority, but just assumed that the film company would realize that the higher authority’s decision overrode the decision by the lower authority. 

Therefore, either way, the film crew might have just rationalized that they had permission from one part of CSX and were denied permission from another part; so, they simply chose to accept authority of the part of CSX that gave them what they had asked for; that being permission to be on CSX property.   Why should they worry about which CSX authority was right and which one was wrong?  How could they be expected to know?

[Mookie]

tree68

For all we know, somebody wearing a CSX "gimme" cap told the crew it was OK in one way or another.   Of course, you can get such hats just about anywhere, but...

Like I said - some man walking his dog....close enough for them.

[tree68]

Euclid

That suggests to me that the apparent claim by the film company of having permission has some merit beyond just their word. 

Most likely a case of "he said / she said," if you know what I mean.

For all we know, somebody wearing a CSX "gimme" cap told the crew it was OK in one way or another.   Of course, you can get such hats just about anywhere, but...

As Balt points out, without some form of written agreement, there was no official permission given.

Add to that the fact that under normal circumstances the railroad would likely have sent someone out to "flag" the location (and that no such person has so far emerged), and the moviemaker's case gets thinner by the minute.

All that said, until the final gavel falls we won't have the information we need to draw complete conclusions.

[ACY Tom]

I am familiar with the location and the basics of railroad operations there, but I wanted to know about the movie-making perspective. Variety's coverage has been fairly extensive, and it gives a film industry perspective, rather than the rail industry perspective that you find on this site. The consensus in the online discussions seems to be that the people who actually make the film rely on the "adults" who take care of the business/financial/legal issues. The man in charge of location arrangements did not get the permission from CSX, and did not go to the site for that reason. Some versions of the story hold that the producers and director went to the site against the advice of location people. The implication is that the absence of the location manager and representatives of CSX is a clear indication that the producers and director were knowingly taking actions that were beyond what they had permission to do. They told the crew they would have one minute to clear out if a train appeared, but I have never heard how that one-minute figure was arrived at. It seems to have been manufactured out of whole cloth by one of the producers or a director. In actuality, it was probably more like 30 seconds --- maybe less. The crew did as they were told because the "adults" were supposed to have made all necessary arrangements. The culture is such that anyone who objects would be told "if you don't do it, your replacement will". I suspect the sheriff wants to be very careful how he handles this because the producers will probably be able to hire some very powerful legal people, and he wants to be sure that whatever charges are brought, will result in conviction. Personally, I hope some serious prison time is served, and I'm willing to wait if this is what it takes to achieve that goal.

[daveklepper]

Possibly the film company was dumb enough to think the private property which they had permission to use INCLUDED THE TRACKS?    And so by extension they thought the bridge would be safe to use?

[Euclid]

Or perhaps the sheriff wants someone else to spend the money to put CSX on trial. 

[zugmann]

...or perhaps pursuing criminal charges against a film company (that may be bringing revenue to the county), that suffered the loss of life of a young woman may be seen as "cold and cruel"? 

Elections and all. (nobody roots for Goliath)

[Euclid]

The sheriff cites the existence of conflicting stories as being unusual, and says that is part of the reason why he chooses not to prosecute.  However, he does not explain the connection. 

It seems like he is saying that the existence of conflicting stories weakens the case for prosecution.  That suggests to me that the apparent claim by the film company of having permission has some merit beyond just their word. 

[BaltACD]

When it comes to permission -

If it is NOT WRITTEN on a document on company letterhead and detailing the area involved and signed by a ranking company official (or the legal department) then one DOES NOT have permission.

[Euclid]

I am not concluding that there is anything particularly unusual about the sheriff choosing not to press charges.

Here is the part that surprises me:

The sheriff said that one of the reasons that he not pursuing criminal charges is that there are “conflicting stories” of whether the film company had permission to be on the tracks.  We know that one of the stories is that CSX sent the film company an email that denied permission to film on CSX property.

So the other story must be that the film company did have permission from CSX. 

Up until now, the only thing that the film company president has said about the question of whether he had permission is, “It’s complicated.” 

As far as I know, this is the first news report that suggests that there is an actual claim on the part of the film company that they did have permission from CSX to be on their property.    

[tree68]

I would opine that things are being handled pretty much as any such case would be.  Even with DWI cases, it goes to the DA (and possibly even a grand jury, if it's felony DWI).  The police may arrest the perp, but if he/she can pay the bail (or if the judge releases them), they're back on the street.

I'm sure the sheriff has provided whatever info he has to the DA.  Trespassing aside, most of the rest of the case isn't really within the sheriff's purview.

[erikem]

What comes to my mind is "proof beyond reasonable doubt", in that while the sheriff may not believe what the production company is saying, he may not think he has enough evidence to convince a jury. The DA may have a better feel for what instructions to pas along to the jury, and those can make or break a case.

- Erik

[cx500]

Quite likely criminal charges will be laid as a result of the tragedy. Exactly which charges, and whether to charge more than one person, gets a little trickier.  I'm not surprised that decision has been passed on to the legal experts in the DA's office.  Too serious a charge might result in acquittal, but on the other hand they don't want to just give a slap on the wrist.

John

[edblysard]

Actually, the Sherriff is playing it smart.

If his office issues charges, then his department bears the expense of investigating, collecting evidence, and all that….allowing the DA’s office to do so dumps the cost of the investigation,  subpoenas and getting witnesses back from California on their budget, not his.

If nothing comes of it, then the DA “wasted” taxpayer’s money, not him.

[samfp1943]

Euclid

Here is the latest news about the investigation of this accident.

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/midnight-rider-investigation-sheriff-will-leave-question-of-criminal-charges-to-d-a-1201157010/#

From the article:

Carter [the sheriff] said that one of the reasons that they are not pursuing their own criminal charges is the unusual nature of the incident, including “conflicting stories” of whether the production had permission to be on the tracks.

Conflicting stories?  One widely reported story is that CSX had not given permission to the film crew to be on the tracks.  CSX even claims to have an email proving that they declined permission.  What is the story that conflicts with that?  I have yet to hear one.

Linked here is the Original Forum Thread from 21 Feb 2014

@   http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/227732.aspx?sort=ASC&pi332=1   [Film Crew Deaths]

Seems as if the whole episode is being swept under the rug. IMHO   Maybe since several months have past the details are "foggier" ?

[Norm48327]

I agree, Euclid. The article seems to gloss over the facts.

[Euclid]

Here is the latest news about the investigation of this accident.

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/midnight-rider-investigation-sheriff-will-leave-question-of-criminal-charges-to-d-a-1201157010/#

From the article:

Carter [the sheriff] said that one of the reasons that they are not pursuing their own criminal charges is the unusual nature of the incident, including “conflicting stories” of whether the production had permission to be on the tracks.

Conflicting stories?  One widely reported story is that CSX had not given permission to the film crew to be on the tracks.  CSX even claims to have an email proving that they declined permission.  What is the story that conflicts with that?  I have yet to hear one.